Windows needs easier upgrades

Microsoft, after years of dominance in the market, now faces competition. That competition, in the form of Apple's Mac OSX and in the form of Linux, forces Microsoft to make some changes.

One area for change is the update process for Windows. Microsoft needs to improve their game in this area.

I have several PCs; three of them run Windows. A relatively modern desktop runs Windows 8.1, a slightly older laptop runs Windows 7, and an ancient tower unit runs Windows XP. They all started with those same versions of Windows (except for the modern desktop which started with Windows 8 and was later upgraded to Windows 8.1).

In addition to the PCs running Windows, I have several PCs running Ubuntu Linux: two laptops running the "desktop" version and three tower PCs running the "server" version.

Ubuntu Linux provides new versions every six months. They have gotten quite good at it. Each April and October, new versions are released. Each April and October, my Ubuntu systems display messages indicating that new versions are available. The server versions, which use a command-line interface, display a simple message at sign-on, along with the command to download and install the new version. The desktop versions, which use a graphic interface, display a dialog with a button that says, roughly, "upgrade now".

Ubuntu makes it easy to upgrade. The current system informs me of the upgrade and provides the instructions to install it. The process is simple: download the new package, install it, and re-start the computer. (It is the only time I have to re-start Linux.)

Windows, in contrast, offers no such support. While the Windows 8 system did download and install the Windows 8.1 update, the Windows 7 machine has said nothing about an upgrade for Windows 8. And the Windows XP machine hums along quietly, too, mentioning nothing about upgrades. (To be fair, the hardware in that ancient PC is not sufficient for Windows 8, so maybe it knows what it is doing.)

I'm not asking for free updates to Windows 8. I recognize that Canonical and Microsoft have different business models. Canonical does not charge for updates (or even the first install) of Ubuntu Linux; Microsoft charges for a new install and each major upgrade. Paying for an update should be a simple affair: one is really paying for an activation code and the software just happens to come along.

Ubuntu Linux also provides a path for old, out-of-support versions. I installed version 11.10, which ran and promply told me that it was out of support, and also prompted me to upgrade. Imagine installing Windows XP today: would it prompt you to upgrade to a later version? (Ubuntu upgrades through versions; the Windows equivalent would be to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista and then to Windows 7.)

Canonical has raised the bar for operating system updates. They work, they are simple, and they encourage people to move to supported versions. Microsoft must match this level of support in their products. The benefit for Microsoft is that people move to the latest version of Windows, which improves their uptake rate. The benefit for users is that they ... move to the latest version of Windows, which provides the latest security patches.

Corporations and large shops may choose to wait for upgrades. They may wish to test them and then roll them out to their users. That's possible too, through Windows' group policies. Individual users, through, have little to lose.